U of CA Rejects Creationism

[micatala]

The Boston Globe ran a short article on Saturday last entitled University of California sued over creationism.

According to the article, UC admissions officials have refused to certify some science and other courses, particularly those using curriculum developed by Bob Jones U and Abeka Books. As a result, The Association of Christian Schools International has filed suit in federal court.

A UC spokesperson said the University has the right to set entrance requirements. She futher stated:

These requirements were established after careful study by faculty and staff to ensure that students who come here are fully prepared with broad knowledge and the critical thinking skills necessary to succeed.

The questions for debate are:

1) Is the UC system justified in refusing to certify courses they deem to be of poor quality because of the creationist viewpoint of the courses?

2) Does the Association of Christian Schools have any grounds for filing suit? What are they?

I am particularly interested in science courses, especially those pertaining to evolution. However, the article does note that some non-science courses, including one entitled "Christianity's Influence in American History," have been rejected.

I do not know at this point any of the particular rationale for the rejections, what was found objectionable in each case, etc.

[ST88]

You're assuming that melanin (i.e., skin shading) is a viable topic for study. Therefore, you are being racist in the same way that you accuse "Neo-Darwinists" of being.

Nonsense. The scientific discovery of melanin has nothing to do with neo-Darwinist race theories of mythical African people originating from non-human ancestors of African apes once upon a time in Africa.

Tsk, tsk. The mere mention of melanin betrays your Neo-Darwinist attitude towards scientific study of skin differences. By acknowledging that there are physical differences between what you call "the races", you are using the same excuse they are.

And make up your mind, is it a "race theory" or is it a "racist theory"? There is a difference.

Race, racial, racist, racialist. What's the 'scientific' difference?

A "race" theory would discuss differences among the "races". A "racist" theory would go further to discuss why certain "races" are superior or inferior.

But I find it interesting that you believe the admissions officers are lying demagogues. Do you believe all of material science is made up of liars & demogogues, or only the ones who disagree with you?

Only the ones who teach racial and racist theories about the origins of the human race from the mythological ancestors of a race of African apes once upon a time in Darwin's mythical Africa.

Asked and answered I guess.

[juliod]

I don't mean to complain, but the moderators are really letting us down in this thread.

I've read the suit. It doesn't mention or allege racism. So discussions of racism in this thread are innapropriate.

I would like to discusss the actual topic, which is the academic qualifications of students given a substandard christian education. But it's not really possible in the current situation.

DanZ

[Chimp]

The school in the lawsuit is not WASC accredited. This means they have
a bigger burden to prove their students qualify.

In effect they have made the UC system their accreditors, which isn't the
primary role of the UC system.

They don't have a strong case, but they may get the UC system to expand
the admissions options.

[ST88]

I don't mean to complain, but the moderators are really letting us down in this thread.

I've read the suit. It doesn't mention or allege racism. So discussions of racism in this thread are innapropriate.

I would like to discusss the actual topic, which is the academic qualifications of students given a substandard christian education. But it's not really possible in the current situation.

Yes, juliod. You're quite right -- and thank you for helping to stick to the thread. I got caught up in the very objection that I made in this thread and wouldn't let it go. At one time it had something to do with the topic as an object lesson, but that point has long since passed. I hereby renounce my responsibility to address the lies of RND (or NDRT or whatever) in this particular thread.

[micatala]

Thank you!!!

The school in the lawsuit is not WASC accredited. This means they have
a bigger burden to prove their students qualify.

That's interesting. The Calvary Chapel School's website says they are WASC accredited.

I tried to find some information on their curriculum. THeir academics page is basically devoid of information, as are several of the other pages.

Here is their statement of belief. There is nothing explicitly mentioned about evolution or creationism, only a general 'we consider the Bible inerrant' sort of statement. Nothing here that would be directly relevant to the nature of their science curriculum.

It is reasonable to infer that they use either Bob Jones or Abeka materials, as these are the two that are specifically mentioned in the suit.

[micatala]

PS (inadvertently hit the send button too soon)

The suit also specifically mentions the following statement from UC, who said the schools could meet standards if they . . .

develop and submit for UC approval a secular science curriculum with a text and course outline that addresses course content/knowledge generally accepted by the scientific community. (page 24)

Further down the page, it notes that UC faculty members had particular concern over evolutionary thoeries.

Now, personally, I think UC would have been better served if they had not mentioned the words 'secular' and 'Christian' (with respect to the publishers mentioned above) and mentioned only their objections related to content and knowledge. I think they will still be OK, as long as they can show they are acting based on the content and knowledge and not against belief.

The word 'viewpoint' that appears prominently in the suit is ambiguous and will I think be played on as much as possible by the plaintiffs.

I will see if I can get a hold of science books by either of the above-mentioned publishers, as this is where the evidence that the faculty and others at UC would have been looking at.

[micatala]

Aaach. Sorry again. My previous post was saved as a draft. This post should have appeared before the previous one.

&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&

Thank you!!!

The school in the lawsuit is not WASC accredited. This means they have
a bigger burden to prove their students qualify.

That's interesting. The Calvary Chapel School's website says they are WASC accredited.

I tried to find some information on their curriculum. THeir academics page is basically devoid of information, as are several of the other pages.

Here is their statement of belief. There is nothing explicitly mentioned about evolution or creationism, only a general 'we consider the Bible inerrant' sort of statement. Nothing here that would be directly relevant to the nature of their science curriculum.

It is reasonable to infer that they use either Bob Jones or Abeka materials, as these are the two that are specifically mentioned in the suit.

[Jose]

UC isn't particularly detailed, either. The courses they consider appropriate for the science requirement are:

Covers the core concepts in one of the fundamental disciplines of biology, chemistry, or physics

. Theoretically, students could take chemistry and physics and skip biology. However, there are some instances in which private schools have asked that one course or another be certified (not being covered by the State Standards, after all). The one they list includes evolution.

Now, it seems to me that evolution is one of the core concepts in biology. It is what ties all of the rest of it together. Without it, not much makes sense. If the courses in question present biblical "literacy" from a young-earth viewpoint, then the courses fail to meet this criterion. It wouldn't matter whether they taught some other creation story instead of the Christian one; the problem would be that they omit the central organizing principle of biology, and replace it with something else.

[juliod]

The word 'viewpoint' that appears prominently in the suit is ambiguous and will I think be played on as much as possible by the plaintiffs.

Yes, they are attempting to create a whole new field of legal right. That of the "viewpoint". You can see where this is headed. ExxonMobile has a "viewpoint" that they are not polluting, so they will have immunity to all civil or criminal laws.

I this case, it is the coonservative christian view that their substandard classes should be certified because it is their "viewpoint" that up is down and black is white.

This will all please the far right. They've been looking for a legal definiition to replace science in the court for a long time. Standards like "scientific certainty" and "best available scientific knowledge" have dogged many conservative attempts to evade responsability. Now the judicial activists can cite "viewpoint" as a legal means to ignore facts in favor of corporate or conservative interests.

I see this suit as lacking merit. I would expect it to be speedily resolved. But with the current prevalence of conservative activism on the bench, there is a danger that the judge may allow this new revisionist concept.

DanZ

[Chimp]

Unless they go by another name that particular school is not listed
in the WASC directories

http://www.acswasc.org/pdf_general/WASC ... latest.pdf